Telegrams relating to Madame Ranevsky keep on popping up in the play, and considering the rich symbolic nature of the work thus far -- with a simple sound of a breaking string to tensions that hint at the social/political turmoil with the Liberation-- it would be a good idea to look deeper into the situation.
Consider the three instances we know so far of Mdm Ranevsky's reactions to the telegrams: First, she rips one up immediately upon receiving it. All she [or anyone] says is that they are from Paris. Secondly, she reads the telegram in the middle of a spontaneous emotional rant . . . and then rips it up angrily: "Then, last year, when my villa was sold to pay my debts, I went off to Paris, and he came and robbed me of everything, left me and took up with another woman, and I tried to poison myself . . . . It was all so stupid, so humiliating [. . . .] [Taking a telegram from her pocket.] I got this to-day from Paris. He asks to be forgiven, begs me to go back" (21). Mdm Ranevsky ends up tearing this one up, too. She is obviously torn in multiple directions, emotionally draining her. Her son drowned; she had a rough past; she loves her family at home, but she did not fix problems from her past and from Paris. What could Chekhov mean by all this? I do see that he is showing her revealing the situation out loud and coming closer to terms with it over time. But there is still uncertainty with her reasons for everything and what will come of all of it.
In the next Act, Mdm Ranevsky says, " . . . and I really ought to go to Paris and be with him" (32) Why? Here again, we see her disregarding money issues (like the fact that the man she loved robbed her), and she is stuck in the middle. How will she move on? What will happen to her and how will this affect the others?- sfa-c Mar 3, 2008
Well I think one of the main reasons she believes she should go back to Paris is that there really isn’t any other place for her. The cherry orchard is being sold along with her estate, she has no really strong family ties, and it’s not like she has any sort of job or son to lean on for financial support. I think in many ways it represents one of the best options for her, besides living with Gayev. The fact that Anya had to go to Paris to get her and convince her to leave also says something. It sounds like she is irrationally attached to Paris. In this regard I believe that Chekov is making a point about Russian nobility. They have this attachment to France and its culture and cannot see the problems at home. They are so caught up with what’s happening over in France that they miss the real problems in Russia. - kli-c Mar 4, 2008
I might have a different reaction to the telegrams than the both of you. Though I am not certain, the fact that she rips the first one up is indicative of the fact that she already knows what it says. Why then, would she read the next ones before tearing them up? Perhaps there is more to the telegrams than what she says. I think that there is an alternate plot to the telegrams. The purpose of tearing might simply be to avoid others reading them, and keep their information secretive.
Ranevsky's comments seem to never address the situation at hand. If someone is talking to her, she doesn't react and engage in conversation very well. She seems distant. Perhaps her comments after the second telegram simply provide background information that has little to do with the content of the message. Although she later says that the man asks to be forgiven and begs her to come back, perhaps she is being frugal with the truth. It is possible that those comments are not the nature of the telegram and simply what she believes to be the emotional state of this man.
Then again, perhaps I'm completely wrong and I shall see after I finish the play. - PSp-c
Psp said, "Ranevsky's comments seem to never address the situation at hand." I couldn't agree more. She seems to always ignore the problem rather than face it. Even when she know she is going broke, she continues to spend lavishly and give money away though she certainly cannot afford it. I think her attitude is similar when it comes to the telegrams. The first one, she immediately rips up. She doesn't have a chance to read it. Although I'm not sure if she knew exactly what it said, as Psp suggested, I do think she knew that it couldn't be good. She doesn't want to face the truth and thus, she destroys the evidence. The second telegram, she at least reads before destroying it. But she still destroys it and avoids its message. Even after she reads it, she feels that if she destroys the evidence, she can forget about it in her mind. She ends up going to Paris, even though the man that she loved there robbed her. Why? Because it allows her to forget her problems at home, just like Kli said. She can almost pretend it never happened if she separates herself enough from it. - Kho-c Mar 5, 2008
I think that Chekhov was making a statement by using Madam Ranevsky to show how the Russian aristocracy was so obsessed with other countries such as France that they ignored what they had in Russia and let that get away from them. Madam Ranevsky spends a good chunk of this novel debating going straight back to Paris to a man who doesn't treat her well and who takes her money and wastes it instead of thinking about saving her life in Russia where she has a family that loves her and wants to genuinely be around her. It's almost like she can't see what a great thing she has in Russia and is just blinded by this obsession with Paris; she has no clue what she has. Still, she dreams to keep the orchard, but I think in a sense she has given up on fighting. I for one would argue that at least one of the telegrams she receives is about payments for the orchard, and she probably shreds it out of frustration because she doesn't quite know what to do. So what does she do? She ignores the problem. She just shreds it up and hopes that it will go away. Sadly, that simply does not work out for her.- KRi-c Mar 10, 2008
The telegrams were obviously from her lover that is in Paris. We know that he took advantage of her and we know that he moved on. I would rip up the telegrams too if a man who did this to me was trying to get me back. I didn't really think too deeply into it just that she came back to escape her problems in Paris. She went to Paris to try and escape bad memories and her problems in Russia and now she has come back to Russia to escape what is in Paris. I feel bad for her because she seems to have a lot of issues, but she is always trying to do good and is trying to find a bright side. I think her finding the bright side is her deciding to run away from the dark side. She coudl also be blinded by the lavishness of Paris too. She doesn't have much money anymore so i think she is trying to act like she does and act as if she has no problems whatsoever. Her running to try and find a bright side always leads back to problems for her.- JJa-c Mar 12, 2008
Honestly? Nah, I don't think that the telegrams have much significance. They're included as just side thoughts. What's really on her mind other than the cherry orchard is her lover who stole from her. And that does carry a little weight. She's terribly emotion-driven. Just look at how she and L and Peter T don't get along often times, especially when they're talking about the courses of action that need to be taken. She's stuck in a rut because she doesn't know what to do at all, and her lover's using her. But she doesn't care, and that's another thing which, like the destruction of the cherry orchard, the construction of the villas, etc, that she doesn't quite know how to deal with. The telegrams themselves are just signs that he isn't leaving her alone, and show then what's running through her mind as she has to deal with all these issues. At the end, they end up causing her to go back to France, so they played out a part, I guess. But telegrams are just reminders of other forces acting in this book, I think. - AZU-C Mar 12, 2008
I do not think the telegrams play too important of a part either. I thought that the reason she ripped up the first one might have been because she found out by telegram that her husband or son dies, but it turns out that is not the case. I just think that its pretty funny that she gets a telegram every single day from her lover that used her for all she was worth. In the beginning, she was angry and tore the telegrams to shreads, but in the end she decided to go back to him. The only reason she came home was probably because she was out of money and she knew he was a golddigger. And the fact that she went back to him in the end to take care of him even though he is just using her and someone tell her that just goes to continue to show her senselessness, and the stupidity of the aristocracy. - kva-c Mar 13, 2008
Consider the three instances we know so far of Mdm Ranevsky's reactions to the telegrams: First, she rips one up immediately upon receiving it. All she [or anyone] says is that they are from Paris. Secondly, she reads the telegram in the middle of a spontaneous emotional rant . . . and then rips it up angrily: "Then, last year, when my villa was sold to pay my debts, I went off to Paris, and he came and robbed me of everything, left me and took up with another woman, and I tried to poison myself . . . . It was all so stupid, so humiliating [. . . .] [Taking a telegram from her pocket.] I got this to-day from Paris. He asks to be forgiven, begs me to go back" (21). Mdm Ranevsky ends up tearing this one up, too. She is obviously torn in multiple directions, emotionally draining her. Her son drowned; she had a rough past; she loves her family at home, but she did not fix problems from her past and from Paris. What could Chekhov mean by all this? I do see that he is showing her revealing the situation out loud and coming closer to terms with it over time. But there is still uncertainty with her reasons for everything and what will come of all of it.
In the next Act, Mdm Ranevsky says, " . . . and I really ought to go to Paris and be with him" (32) Why? Here again, we see her disregarding money issues (like the fact that the man she loved robbed her), and she is stuck in the middle. How will she move on? What will happen to her and how will this affect the others?-
Well I think one of the main reasons she believes she should go back to Paris is that there really isn’t any other place for her. The cherry orchard is being sold along with her estate, she has no really strong family ties, and it’s not like she has any sort of job or son to lean on for financial support. I think in many ways it represents one of the best options for her, besides living with Gayev. The fact that Anya had to go to Paris to get her and convince her to leave also says something. It sounds like she is irrationally attached to Paris. In this regard I believe that Chekov is making a point about Russian nobility. They have this attachment to France and its culture and cannot see the problems at home. They are so caught up with what’s happening over in France that they miss the real problems in Russia.
-
I might have a different reaction to the telegrams than the both of you. Though I am not certain, the fact that she rips the first one up is indicative of the fact that she already knows what it says. Why then, would she read the next ones before tearing them up? Perhaps there is more to the telegrams than what she says. I think that there is an alternate plot to the telegrams. The purpose of tearing might simply be to avoid others reading them, and keep their information secretive.
Ranevsky's comments seem to never address the situation at hand. If someone is talking to her, she doesn't react and engage in conversation very well. She seems distant. Perhaps her comments after the second telegram simply provide background information that has little to do with the content of the message. Although she later says that the man asks to be forgiven and begs her to come back, perhaps she is being frugal with the truth. It is possible that those comments are not the nature of the telegram and simply what she believes to be the emotional state of this man.
Then again, perhaps I'm completely wrong and I shall see after I finish the play. -
Psp said, "Ranevsky's comments seem to never address the situation at hand." I couldn't agree more. She seems to always ignore the problem rather than face it. Even when she know she is going broke, she continues to spend lavishly and give money away though she certainly cannot afford it. I think her attitude is similar when it comes to the telegrams. The first one, she immediately rips up. She doesn't have a chance to read it. Although I'm not sure if she knew exactly what it said, as Psp suggested, I do think she knew that it couldn't be good. She doesn't want to face the truth and thus, she destroys the evidence. The second telegram, she at least reads before destroying it. But she still destroys it and avoids its message. Even after she reads it, she feels that if she destroys the evidence, she can forget about it in her mind. She ends up going to Paris, even though the man that she loved there robbed her. Why? Because it allows her to forget her problems at home, just like Kli said. She can almost pretend it never happened if she separates herself enough from it. -
I think that Chekhov was making a statement by using Madam Ranevsky to show how the Russian aristocracy was so obsessed with other countries such as France that they ignored what they had in Russia and let that get away from them. Madam Ranevsky spends a good chunk of this novel debating going straight back to Paris to a man who doesn't treat her well and who takes her money and wastes it instead of thinking about saving her life in Russia where she has a family that loves her and wants to genuinely be around her. It's almost like she can't see what a great thing she has in Russia and is just blinded by this obsession with Paris; she has no clue what she has. Still, she dreams to keep the orchard, but I think in a sense she has given up on fighting. I for one would argue that at least one of the telegrams she receives is about payments for the orchard, and she probably shreds it out of frustration because she doesn't quite know what to do. So what does she do? She ignores the problem. She just shreds it up and hopes that it will go away. Sadly, that simply does not work out for her.-
The telegrams were obviously from her lover that is in Paris. We know that he took advantage of her and we know that he moved on. I would rip up the telegrams too if a man who did this to me was trying to get me back. I didn't really think too deeply into it just that she came back to escape her problems in Paris. She went to Paris to try and escape bad memories and her problems in Russia and now she has come back to Russia to escape what is in Paris. I feel bad for her because she seems to have a lot of issues, but she is always trying to do good and is trying to find a bright side. I think her finding the bright side is her deciding to run away from the dark side. She coudl also be blinded by the lavishness of Paris too. She doesn't have much money anymore so i think she is trying to act like she does and act as if she has no problems whatsoever. Her running to try and find a bright side always leads back to problems for her.-
Honestly? Nah, I don't think that the telegrams have much significance. They're included as just side thoughts. What's really on her mind other than the cherry orchard is her lover who stole from her. And that does carry a little weight. She's terribly emotion-driven. Just look at how she and L and Peter T don't get along often times, especially when they're talking about the courses of action that need to be taken. She's stuck in a rut because she doesn't know what to do at all, and her lover's using her. But she doesn't care, and that's another thing which, like the destruction of the cherry orchard, the construction of the villas, etc, that she doesn't quite know how to deal with. The telegrams themselves are just signs that he isn't leaving her alone, and show then what's running through her mind as she has to deal with all these issues. At the end, they end up causing her to go back to France, so they played out a part, I guess. But telegrams are just reminders of other forces acting in this book, I think. -
I do not think the telegrams play too important of a part either. I thought that the reason she ripped up the first one might have been because she found out by telegram that her husband or son dies, but it turns out that is not the case. I just think that its pretty funny that she gets a telegram every single day from her lover that used her for all she was worth. In the beginning, she was angry and tore the telegrams to shreads, but in the end she decided to go back to him. The only reason she came home was probably because she was out of money and she knew he was a golddigger. And the fact that she went back to him in the end to take care of him even though he is just using her and someone tell her that just goes to continue to show her senselessness, and the stupidity of the aristocracy.
-